|
Agenda
Workshop
Leased
Lines Market Review (Brian Malone)
Meeting
1. Introduction
2. Minutes of previous meeting
3. EU Market Reviews (Elaine Axby, Oftel)
4. Oftel Forum Feedback (Julia Bradford, Oftel)
5. Partial Private Circuits (Kalpesh Brahmbhatt, Oftel)
6. ISDN (Alan Pridmore, Oftel)
7. Telephone rental (Charles Hudson, Oftel)
8. Marketing rules for Internet sales to business
customers (Charles Hudson, Oftel)
9. Broadband Market Review: questions on VoIP
(Naaz Rashid, Oftel)
10. Update on telco failures including DTI feedback (Maeve Gallagher,
Oftel)
-----------------------------------------------
Note of Meeting
Present:
Panel Members
Ms Vivienne Peters American Express
Mr Stuart Richardson BBC
Mr Glenn Morgan British Airways
Mr Cliff A Parker PriceWaterhouse Coopers
Mr Greg Ruddick Railtrack
Mr Martin Rayment BAA
Mr Andrew Luce Videor
Oftel
Alan Pridmore (AP) (Chair)
Elizabeth Greenberg (EG) (Panel Advisor)
Maura Crawford (MC)
Elaine Axby (EA)
Julia Bradford (JB)
Kalpesh Brahmbhatt (KB)
Charles Hudson (CH)
Naaz Rashid (NR),
Maeve Gallagher (MG)
Item 1: Introduction
1. The Panel agreed the agenda.
Item 2 Matters
arising from May 2002 meeting
2. The Panel agreed the minutes.
3. Re: ENUM
Vivienne Peters (VP), a member of the UK ENUM Group (UKEG) representing
INTUG, gave an update on the status of the ENUM project. A project
team and manager had been elected. VP informed the group that five
network operators and three internet Service Providers had contributed
to the funds for the trial. The trial was planned to start in January
2003 and would run for six months.
VP confirmed that some other European countries were conducting
trials and information would be shared with the International Telecommunications
Union (ITU).
4. Re: BT Pricing
AP stated that BT Pricing for business customers would be covered
in the forthcoming market reviews which would look closely at the
scope for reducing regulation on BT. A panel member stated that
the issue was becoming increasingly important ; more companies were
moving their call centres abroad as it is too expensive to run the
business in the UK.
5. Re: Calls to Mobile
Oftel informed the panel that the Competition Commission was still
reviewing its report, which was due at the end of January 2003.
Panel members requested that the information was made available
as soon as possible as businesses were wishing to avail of the proposed
savings. It was noted that it was in the mobile operators' interest
to lengthen the appeal for as long as possible. It was suggested
that LBUP members should write to Patricia Hewitt if they wished
to complain about the delay of the report from the Competition Commission.
6 Re: Corporate Numbering
EG thanked the Panel members for their assistance with the corporate
numbering questionnaire and workshop, and explained that the information
gained would be reflected in the forthcoming consultation document.
Item 3 EU Market Reviews
7. Elaine Axby (EA) gave a presentation
on all the EU Market Reviews that Oftel was working on. She specifically
informed the panel that Oftel were planning to have the market review
Fixed Retail Access and Services would look specifically at Large
Business issues. She felt this market review would be of particular
interest to the panel and encouraged panel members to put their
views forward when the consultation was published.
8. EA also stated that any market review not on the EU commission
list would have to be agreed by the EU commission prior to consultation.
She also informed the Panel that the EU considered the market not
competitive enough if one player had Significant Market Power (SMP).
9. EA also pointed out that remedial action under Competition law
would be quicker in future. The Competition Commission Appeals Tribunal
(CCAT) would replace the Competition Commission and should make
cases more timely. EA stated that Oftel would like to do competition
cases in four months but Oftel had no control during the appeal
stage. With regard to the mobile competition case appeal, the mobile
operators were speaking to the Government and the EU and were threatening
not to roll out 3G if their case was not heard. EA stated that Oftel
was also frustrated with the length of the time the whole process
was taking. A panel member stated that the ITU was reviewing the
wholesale charges of mobiles as it came within its powers to do
so. However the ITU did not have powers on the retail price.
Item 4 Oftel Forum
10. Julia Bradford (JB), secretariat of the Oftel Forum, informed
the panel that the last forum meeting had taken place on 25th October.
She said attendees were asked a list of questions which she presented
to the panel members. She stated that she would appreciate it if
panel members would also reply to the questions. The questions were:
· What do you think Oftel should be taking into account in
preparing 2003/2004 management plan?
· Do we need to focus our regulatory efforts more effectively,
and if so how?
· What about beyond Oftel - what should happen now and in
2003/4 to ensure Ofcom gives priority to the most relevant issues?
Reponses to the questions should be sent to john.wimmer@oftel.gov.uk.
11. JB stated that all information on the Forum would be added
to the Oftel website on the following link: http://www.oftel.gov.uk/ind_groups/oftel_forum/index.htm
The next meeting for consumer groups only was planned for 7th April
2003. If any of the panel members wished to do a presentation to
Oftel or Consumer groups, this would be very welcome. Also, suggestions
for items on the agenda would also be welcomed.
12. It was suggested by the panel that it would be better to have
two foras - one for consumers and one for businesses, as not all
parties in the current forum would appreciate or be interested in
large business issues.
13. JB requested that topics be put forward by LBUP members, which
could then be considered by the Oftel Forum group as to whether
they would best be considered by a business-orientated or mixed
group. JB also stated that feedback on the revamped Oftel Forum
webpage would be appreciated. E-mails for topics could be sent to
julia.bradford@oftel.gov.uk.
Item 5 Partial Private Circuits
14. Kalpesh Brahmbhatt (KB) gave a presentation
on Partial Private Circuits (PPC) to the panel members. KB stated
that the PPCs that Oftel was examining were atthe wholesale level,
which should increase that market. It was also felt that the retail
market wouldreduce in cost.
15. KB informed the panel that the final Direction by Oftel was
planned for the end of November 2002. 28 days after the Direction
was issued, OLOs should get the proposed price reduction from BT.
Reductions should then be passed on to the end customer. Large businesses
could also use their buying power to reap some of the benefit. However,
prices for PPCs falling by the New Year depended on the timing of
the Direction's publication and Oftel's final consideration on what
would be a reasonable timescale in which to expect reductions. KB
informed the panel that the intercarrier discount at retail level
might be affected due to the reduction in the cost of PPCs. This
change applied to UK circuits only.
16. A member asked if PPCs were circuits which carried call traffic
that originated and terminated on the business's own property without
using a BT exchange. KB stated this did not forma PPC, as these
were interconnection circuits that needed to breakout or have a
trunk link. Panel members commented that they would welcome the
opportunity to have the link supplied by other operators.
17. LBUP members requested a list of operators who had applied
for PPCs, which KB agreed to provide.
Post meeting point: Partial Private Circuits, Phase Two - a Direction
to resolve a dispute concerning the provision of partial private
circuits - 23 December 2002, may be viewed at http://www.oftel.gov.uk/publications/broadband/leased_lines/ppc1202/direction.htm
Item 6 ISDN
18. Alan Pridmore (AP) explained that the forthcoming consultative
document on Wholesale Line Rental (WLR) would consider whether ISDN
(2 and 30) should be included within the scope of the new product.
The consultation would be issued in November 2002 and statement
published in the New Year. The statement would set out the specification
BT would have to introduce to obtain a relaxation in the Retail
Price Control.
Item 7 Telephone Rental
19. Charles Hudson thanked the panel members for providing information
on operators who rent out telephone equipment. He stated that the
information they had provided was useful in assisting with a competition
case he was investigating.
Item 8 Marketing Rules for Internet Sales to Business customers
20. Charles Hudson (CH) reminded the panel of the rules that were
introduced in May 2002 governing BT's marketing of Internet services
to residential customers, in particular the behavioural rules put
in place to prevent the misuse of customer data. In the context
of the marketing of Internet services to business customers, CH
stated that the issues might be different, since a lot of marketing
activity would appear to occur in response to a request for tender.
CH asked panel members whether they considered that access to customer
data represented a real advantage in that situation.
21. Some panel members felt that access to customer data represented
a potential advantage to BT e.g. BT account managers could get more
information and use that information to put together targeted packages
for a customer. One panel member said that it had experience of
BT attempting to exploit that advantage in a tender situation.
22. However, most panel members felt that BT would not be able
to use customer data to its advantage, as it was too inefficient
in supplying such data in relation to the services it already provided.
Other panel members stated that they were quite capable of assembling
relevant customer data themselves for the purposes of any tender.
Item 9 Broadband Market Review - Questions on VoIP
23. Naaz Rashid (NR), sought information on relevant markets required
for the Broadband Market Review, and asked the Panel members' views
on the following question:
'If you use broadband Internet access, would you value the ability
to make and receive unlimited voice calls over multiple (up to nine)
lines via broadband (data) services (providing the quality of voice
service was at least as good as traditional voice telephony)? If
so, what monthly premium would they pay for such a service within
their current broadband package? "
24. Members thought that the question was too ambiguous. It was
felt that linking the question to the number of lines was confusing
and that more value could be gained if the question was re-drafted
to focus on bandwidth. The Panel believed that what business customers
wanted was DSL Access from a carrier with end-to-end control. Bandwidth
and quality of service were seen as the important elements. A member
stated that they would not pay a monthly premium for VoIP to VoIP.
In their view, voice and data were components of broadband internet
access and they did not expect to pay extra for VoIP services.
25. Members stated that promoting home working would encourage
people to get ADSL connection. Members felt that 'Broadband for
Britain' was doing a lot of work to promote Broadband in the UK.
Members felt that Oftel could do more to get Broadband in areas
requested by consumers. The Belgium experience of broadband was
raised, where it had been a regulatory decision to promote and set
the price for roll-out, however, it was acknowledged that the issue
extended beyond Oftel in the UK. Oftel stated that options such
as satellite were being considered. Other options that Oftel had
investigated were too expensive for the home user. Oftel had found
that consumers would like to get Broadband now and worry about having
competition later.
Item 10 Update on Telco Failures including DTI Feedback
26. Maeve Gallagher updated the panel on the consultation on telecommunication
failures. She confirmed that a number of responses were received
from operators and consumer groups which were being reviewed. The
consultation gave two options for the way forward. Consumers preferred
the second option of operators sharing a centralised database. Operators
preferred the first option , which involved a message on the old
number advertising the new number, but this was not favoured by
consumers as it meant the end user would loose their number. A statement
following the consultation was due at the end of 2002.
Post Action Point
The link to the statement is:
http://www.oftel.gov.uk/publications/numbering/2002/nupo1202.htm
27. The DTI also consulted on telco failures and proposed five
different options. Responses were received and a statement was due
from the DTI by the end of 2002.
28. Some members stated that the incumbent was improving its services
and was wining back customers. Members felt this could result in
having one major operator and therefore result in higher prices.
The panel felt this was something that the NRA's and EU should be
looking at. They also stated that some businesses had multiple operators
so they had a fall back position, however, this could also result
in higher prices. The threat of an operator failing remained a concern
for members as this would influence with whom they tendered.
Item 11 AOB
29 Re: Mobile Number Portability
Members were informed that mobile operators were encouraged to respond
to their customers' requests as to whether particular mobile numbers
are on-net or off-net. As a centralised database is not available,
operators can only state whether a mobile number is on their network
or not.
30 A panel member stated that its company had actively discouraged
fixed and mobile portability, due to the time and costs involved
in porting and the impact on its dialling plans.
|
